Whatever happened to the concept of the “loyal opposition?” It seems to have collapsed under the political polarization that has overtaken our government over the last twenty years. Now, polarization has overtaken our Church. The loudest of us can no longer countenance anyone who disagrees with our particular theological perspective or vain of Scriptural interpretation. Heck, even the strict Evangelical Calvinists and Arminians can put up with one another without calling the other “heretic” or “blasphemer” or casting the other out of the Church (for the most part). Why can we no longer tolerate one another? Pride, I submit.
In a similar way that many consider Fascists and Communists of the same ilk, but from different perspectives, I came to see long ago segments of the religious “conservatives” and “liberals” as being of the same ilk, just from different perspectives. They are Anglican-fundamentalists beholden to extremism within their ideological and theological perspectives. Not much different than the political conservatives and liberals – ideological-fundamentalists. Gee, the Church looks a whole lot like the world, doesn’t it. The worst-of-us has invaded both relms.
Despite it all, despite what happens, I will maintain a middle-way whether it is popular, convenient, or tenable. Jesus’ way tended to be a third-way. That is the way I seek. In theology, I might call myself a Reformed-Catholic (an Anglican). In politics, a progressive-conservative (perhaps somewhat libertarian by default). Frankly, I would rather avoid labels all together, but that is impossible. I would rather be confounding.

From Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, during a rectent lecture.
The Richard Hooker Lecture: Richard Hooker (c1554-1600): The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Revisited
The Temple Church, London, Wednesday 26 October 2005

“The ‘sufficiency’ or perfection of Scripture, argues Hooker, is a matter of its perfect capacity to do what it is meant to do. If we try to make it do more than it is meant to, we destroy its credibility; if we suggest, for example, that nothing except what is commanded in the Bible can be other than sinful, we paralyse a great deal of ordinary human life… But the underlying point is wholly serious. The Bible is neither a complete nor an incomplete law book. We have to break through the sterile opposition between Catholic and puritan error, Catholics arguing that all sorts of things are obligatory under divine law that are not contained in the Bible, puritans countering with the claim that everything not commanded in Scripture is in effect prohibited. Both extremes, by couching their question in terms of what will please God and further their salvation, miss the main thing, which is that Scripture uncovers the ‘abundant’ purpose of God in creation and redemption, the glory that human creatures in communion with Christ are made to manifest.”

Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, delivered another lecture – this time for the 2005 Pitt Lecture at the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale. He issued a warning on the future of World Anglicanism.
Here is a short paragraph from the lecture describing a crucial element of Anglicanism. Click below to read the whole lecture, which is long.
The concept of ‘communion’ lies at the heart of Anglicanism. At once it provides us with our raison d’etre and at the same time as giving us our uniqueness provides the basis for much of our self-analysis. Our understanding of KOINONIA, our analysis of what it means and our attempts to share those conclusions with other Christians provides us with our ethos. Our pain over the past few years, well documented across the world, stems from our failure to embrace what we have learned of KOINONIA and to translate that learning experience into practicalities. If we have a virtue it must surely be that there is a transparency about our quest – and we have not hidden our pain from others. It is my submission that in trying to find a way forward Anglicanism will do more than indulge in house-keeping – it will in fact help other traditions to see more clearly what the Easter message means for the institutional Church.
From: Episcopal News Service

Continue reading →

Archbishop Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland spoke at Virginia Theological Seminary (that finishing school down south -hehe) concerning his interpretations of how the world-wide Church has conducted itself since the Windsor Report was published.
Here is the text of his address. I think it is important and encouraging as we move forward. I don’t think some of the “conservatives” will agree with his interepretations, but that’s the way things are.
THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION: WHAT COMMUNION?
Yesterday in my first lecture I tried to suggest that there is a relationship between the historic growth of the Anglican Communion and the emergence of difficult issues which threaten our common life. I also suggested that it is possible to turn crisis into opportunity.
In this second lecture I want to say something about Anglican understanding of what ‘communion’ means, the implications of the relationship we call ‘being in communion’ and then to look ahead into the future of the Anglican Communion.
I am concerned that the full implications of the Windsor Report and the process it involves returns to the centre of our thinking as a Communion, As I said in the Introduction to that Report, Windsor must be seen as part of a process. Windsor did not seek to address the rights and wrongs of the sexuality question. That was not the task given to the Lambeth Commission. It was a Report on how Anglicanism could address deep differences, deep divisions on principle and it is about methodology. It is my own conviction that in the history of the Anglican Communion the value or otherwise of Windsor must be judged by the process of which it is part — but only a part. Windsor was not just born out of controversy. It was, I believe an honest attempt by a diverse group of Anglican scholars and leaders to address how bonds of affection, autonomy and diversity could face up to divisive issues — and such issues will I am convinced continue to arise in the years to come. As we prepared the Report I often asked myself the question — how much does Anglicanism really want to overcome obstacles to corporate communion when there is such diversity on the nature of that ‘communion’ itself?

Continue reading →

In my e-mail today, I received the daily news update from Focus-on-the-Family known as Citizenlink. One of the news blurbs focused on the Bishop of Recife in Brazil being deposed from his position.
This story is yet another, and in my opinion one of the most egregious, example of the failure of Christians to be Christian in the ideological “wars!” We simply must stop this kind of blatant mischaracterization, intentional misinformation, and forthright lying. Neither theological liberals nor conservatives are innocent. I have heard as many theological liberals as conservatives castigate and defame their opponents.
As followers of the Way of Christ, we are told: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, NIV) What are the weapons we are to use: prayer, humility, mercy, grace, peace, truth telling, care for those unable to care for themselves, selflessness, and many others. Yet, to listen to the forces theologically aligned against one another in the Church is to hear the worst of the ideological and political battles going on between Republicans and Democrats. Our way should be profoundly counter-cultural, but only if we dare to live out the call of the Gospel of Christ.
I want to say that Focus-on-the-Family just doesn’t understand Anglican structures and polity, but these people are not stupid – plus, the American Anglican Council played a large part in this news piece.
It is an example of propaganda and the intentional practice of baring false witness against the American Church, its parishioners, and its leaders. Whether we agree or not with the approval and consecration of Bishop Robinson in the Diocese of New Hampshire, or on the gay question generally, to knowingly misinform, twist the truth, and lie about people and events is completely unjustifiable and unchristian. The end does not justify the means, even if you consider this whole affair war.
If you do not recall, this bishop traveled to the U.S. to participate in illegal and irregular confirmations in the Diocese of Ohio. The four or so reactionary parishes in Ohio conducted a protest confirmation service with retired American bishops and the Bishop of Recife (and perhaps others?), without informing and receiving the permission of the Bishop of Ohio. These confirmations were done in secret in an Orthodox Church building and only later made public. The Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Brazil responded by disciplining the Bishop of Recife over his illegal actions.
The news story:

Brazilian Bishop Defrocked for Standing Up for Truth
by Pete Winn, associate editor
SUMMARY: The ordination of a gay bishop in the U.S. is having repercussions worldwide.
A major Anglican bishop in Brazil has been defrocked because he opposed the installation of American homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson — and said so publicly.
This is absolutely a distortion of the truth. The bishop would not have been removed if he protested against the inclusion of homosexuals in the Church, but he illegally transgressed not only diocesan boundaries but also provincial boundaries by coming to the Diocese of Ohio to participate in secret and irregular confirmations without the knowledge of his own Archbishop or the Bishop of Ohio. I am sure there are priests and bishops in Brazil who publicly disagree with the American and Canadian Churches’ positions on homosexuals and have not been removed from office. This statement is a lie, and these people know it!

The archbishop of Brazil, Orlando Santos de Oliveira, has ousted the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti.
Cavalcanti is a solid evangelical and opposes the recognition of homosexual clergy, according to the Rev. Canon Ellis Brust of the American Anglican Council, who has been following the situation.

Continue reading →

Below are two questions asked of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswald appearing on Christianity Today’s website. I like the responses.
Q: Here in Kentucky, members of three Episcopal churches have voted to leave the denomination. They said that the church has departed from historic Christianity. What would you say to these people?
A: We all claim the authority of scripture. The ancient creeds, the doctrine of the trinity, the nature of Christ — all these things are not up for negotiation. … I would say if sexuality becomes the ground on which division occurs, then it means that sex is more important than the doctrine of the holy trinity and the divinity of Christ, which is a very sorry situation to find oneself in. Isn’t it ironic that people can overlook Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage and claim biblical orthodoxy and become hysterical over a reference in the letter to the Romans about homosexual behaviour? The Bible, of course, didn’t understand homosexuality as an orientation. It only understood it as a behaviour. Clearly, the biblical writers presumed that everyone was naturally heterosexual.
Q: What would you want people in Kentucky to know about the Episcopal church?
A: The Episcopal Church is a questioning community. … It’s confident that Christ is at its centre, and that gives it the courage to look at things that are difficult. It also is a church which has lived with open-ended questions. It doesn’t need to reduce things to absolutes. We can deal with shades of grey, we can deal with paradox and ambiguity without feeling that we are being unfaithful.

While I’ve been doing some data-mining at the Church Medical Trust this past week, I’ve had time to catch up on some of the House of Bishops/House of Deputies Listserv posts that keeps piling up on me. Through those posts, a couple of new ideas have come through that I find interesting.
First, one person asked whether those in the forefront of the opposition to the two controversial decisions at General Convention 2003 and those most stringent in demanding all of Anglicanism bend to their particular social and theological positions, are in fact going down the old warn path of the old Rigorists. This thought really struck me! Yes, in many ways, if not most ways, they are “Neo-Rigorists!” The person then went on to posit that they will come to the same fate as the old Rigorists – schism and then disappearance.
Second, the following excerpt comes from a comment to a post on the weblog The Propaganda Box.

“What strikes me is that we used to brag about how diverse we were…but it wasn’t real diversity. It was purposeful, if benign, avoidance. What would a truly diverse Church look like? I’d sure like to find out.”
The person who wrote the above commented that the liberals cannot accommodate “traditionalists,” but demand the traditionalists bend to the liberals’ demands. The same accusation many liberals are making against the present-day conservatives/reactionaries. He is right – this can be seen in political and social liberal circles as well. A good many liberals claim to be all welcoming of diverse opinion until the opinions disagree with their own, especially conservative opinions. I worked at Kent State University where political-correctness runs amuck – all one has to do is read what goes on at our universities to see this kind of thing happening. It always amazes me when I read about demonstrations among self-identified liberal students demanding a university keep certain people off their campus because they espouse a conservative perspective!
Anyway, the traditionalists and conservatives within the Episcopal Church have been on the short-end-of-the-stick for a long time now. While I do not agree with current tactics of many of the conservatives, they have a point. Yet, what would our church look like if we had true diversity? We don’t now, really, we just ignore one another as much as possible – Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, liberal and conservative, etc.
I hope for and will for work for such a day. Their must be room in our church, within Anglicanism, for time honored and hard-fought positions: a male only priesthood, partnered gays receiving Holy Orders, open communion, lay presidency, the position and authority of Scripture, etc.

The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) is meeting in Nottingham, England this week. The ACC is one of the Anglican Communion’s “instruments of unity” and is designed to offer advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada have given their presentations justifying the actions over the past two years that have caused such acrimony and conflict within the Anglican Communion, and within their respective churches. See news entries at Episcopal News Service for more complete news coverage of the meeting and the presentations.
I’ve read a good portion of the 135-page paper presented by the American delegation. While people can disagree with some of the theological and scriptural work, the following excerpt from the American Anglican Council (AAC) indicates that there is not even a willingness to listen to the arguments. For the AAC and those aligned with them around the world, there is no willingness to compromise or to remain together. Here is an except that I think demonstrates the extreme nature of their cause and their opinions:

“AAC: ECUSA Shameless in Its Defense of a New Gospel
Nottingham – The Episcopal Church’s presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) asserts a new gospel marked by theology and doctrine contrary to Holy Scripture and inconsistent with the historic faith and practice of Anglicanism. ECUSA’s statements were framed by specific arguments they have espoused for at least 15 years. Their profession that the Holy Spirit led ECUSA to consecrate a non-celibate homosexual and bless same sex unions is deeply disturbing, and we reject the validity of such a claim as contrary to God’s word revealed…”

Read it all.
Their minds are made up, there is no possibility for alternative interpretations or application of Scripture, there is no allowance for similarities to past historic events and changes, and no possibility that their position could be wrong. They have become Anglican-fundamentalists, who are acting in very unAnglican ways.
We shall see whether this is just another round of meetings giving reason for the ACC and the Network to attempt to split the Episcopal Church. I can certainly understand different positions, but I cannot understand the decent into fundamentalism.

This is interesting! Well, at least I think it is interesting…
The Anglican Timeline

I am in a tough spot right now – not sleeping well, stressing over finding a job, not wanting to do any school work, yadda, yadda, yadda. There is so much going on and the pace is only quickening. With only a few weeks of classes left, end of year stuff is being scheduled right and left, especially for us seniors. (Is it “us” or “we”?)
I’m ready to be out. I’m not ready to leave this “monastic” feel, ethos, what word should go here? The whole idea of a post-modern monastic experience continues to have such a draw for me. This place, this seminary, this Close, has such a feel. We live in intentional community, very close, on top of one another, in a fishbowl. We study together, we minister together, we worship together, say the Daily Offices together, eat together, argue and yell together – we are formed together – men, women, single, married, straight, gay, black, white, brown, younger and older. I am going to truly miss this and if there were a way to maintain it no matter where I am, I would be there. Of course it gets tiring at times, but that is all part of the experience.
Part of the whole saga is simply doing it, truly. Maybe there will be no interest in such a thing in the beginning. Maybe there will be great interest. This isn’t like Jesus People or Sojourners – intentional communities – but an honest monastic form of life, a true rule of life.
Honestly, I would love to be able to have a large building for community and ministry. We live and work and worship together. We have space for visitors for retreats or to just get away. It would be different from traditional monasteries in that we have a very mixed kind of community, yet similar in the pace and shape of life.